Ohio and the 2012 Election

2012-11-02T07:49:30-04:00https://images.c-span.org/Files/ff8/309021-05-m.jpgMark Naymik talked about Ohio’s role as a “swing” state in the presidential election, and he responded to telephone calls and electronic communications. Topics included the state’s historical significance in tracking presidential election outcomes, the unemployment and jobs outlook in the state, key issues for Ohio voters, and what to watch for on election night, among other topics.“Swing” states are those in which either both major political parties have a strong chance of winning a state’s electoral college votes.*As a result both Republican and Democrats campaign more heavily in those states because they represent the best chances to gain electoral votes.*This was part ten of a “Washington Journal” series on the ten “swing” or “battleground” states in the 2012 election: Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Ohio.

Mark Naymik talked about Ohio’s role as a “swing” state in the presidential election, and he responded to telephone calls and electronic communications. Topics included the state’s historical…
read more

Ohio and the 2012 ElectionMark Naymik talked about Ohio’s role as a “swing” state in the presidential election, and he responded to telephone calls and electronic communications. Topics included the state’s historical significance in tracking presidential election outcomes, the unemployment and jobs outlook in the state, key issues for Ohio voters, and what to watch for on election night, among other topics.

“Swing” states are those in which either both major political parties have a strong chance of winning a state’s electoral college votes.*As a result both Republican and Democrats campaign more heavily in those states because they represent the best chances to gain electoral votes.*